This is a discussion on OK...I admit it...I like to stir up trouble...so... :) a 1911 vs. Glock thread.... within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; That means more 1911 pistols (remaining on the dealer shelves) for me to choose from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GLOCK ~ :fight: ~ COLT...

As you should realize from a thread I started about Glocks, I'm not anti-Glock and am even drawn by their reputation, ease of shooting, and the most positive, tactile, trigger reset on any gun I have ever shot. I like the "family" of sizes, and a Glock is a Glock is a Glock...

But, for some reason, Glocks did not have a good showing in the ICE tests that resulted in the multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts to H&K and Sig. Inferences regarding the testing suggests that it was not "Glocks don't have a hammer/safety" etc. but rather their actual performance in the testing. If that's factual, then I'm a bit disappointed, but then OTOH, I have no idea what those tests mean to us who carry Glocks as our self defense gun. Well, actually I don't carry a Glock, but I am sure tempted to.

Did I read up(^) there that somebody said (hic), a 9mm will get the job done just as good as a .45 ??? Hey, we could dive into this and really beat the crap outta each other. Me first -----only if your in need of a so-so boat anchor !!------------

My Glock 23 with the wear spots on the slide finish and the areas on the frame that are worn smooth, has more soul than any gun I have ever seen. Thatís the kind of customizing I like. The kind put on through use. Ivory grips on a combat handgun? You got to be kidding.

But, for some reason, Glocks did not have a good showing in the ICE tests that resulted in the multi-million dollar, multi-year contracts to H&K and Sig. Inferences regarding the testing suggests that it was not "Glocks don't have a hammer/safety" etc. but rather their actual performance in the testing. If that's factual, then I'm a bit disappointed, but then OTOH, I have no idea what those tests mean to us who carry Glocks as our self defense gun. Well, actually I don't carry a Glock, but I am sure tempted to.

Do you have any links about this test? I found on article saying SIG got a contract because of it, but not much else. Since Glock has always done extremely well in torture tests, I would like to know exactly what the complaints were, an what test were conducted.

Do you have any links about this test? I found on article saying SIG got a contract because of it, but not much else. Since Glock has always done extremely well in torture tests, I would like to know exactly what the complaints were, an what test were conducted.

Actually Sig and H&K got huge contracts as a result of the test.

As I understand it, the results are not available to the public and the participants were not allowed to disclose specifics, so test results are hard to come by.

There was an article about the ICE tests in Sigarm's Velocity magazine but again details of actual tests, etc. could not be disclosed.

My impression of the tests were focused on shooting, because thousands and thousands of rounds were shot. I posted this sinippet from a Mr. ERHARDT, Director of Marketing for Sigarms in another thread and included it below for reference:

"...If you still doubt this, or can't belive that your beloved H&K, S&W, Beretta, Springfield Armory or Glock could possibly lose to the SIG SAUER just do this simple test. Buy 3 million rounds of the same test ammo and shoot it through the pistols. Earmark 250,000 for the SIGs. Once you have completed the testing you'll know what we and the DHS and USCG know." - ERHARDT

As implied by the number of rounds fired, it was a shooting intense test. I don't know if drop tests, mud, etc. and environment tests were done or what.

There is some hint that the test results may actually be released in the near future. But, the implication of the Velocity magazine article was that the focus was that the guns went bang every time and maintained specified accuracy thoroughout the tests.

Honestly, I was stunned that Glock didn't prevail and would really like to know what really took place in the tests.

Thatís too bad that the results arenít released. Nothing against SIGís (I actually plan on getting one in the near future), but it is kind of hard to believe what someone that works for SIG says about how Glocks did in the test. Just like I wonít give much credence to what someone from Glock said about how SIG did in a test where the results could not be examined.

Thatís too bad that the results arenít released. Nothing against SIGís (I actually plan on getting one in the near future), but it is kind of hard to believe what someone that works for SIG says about how Glocks did in the test. Just like I wonít give much credence to what someone from Glock said about how SIG did in a test where the results could not be examined.

Roger that, but Sig and H&K did get enormous contracts as a result of their performance. So it does kinda corroborate the Sigarms' claims. And I haven't heard of any protests, etc. from the other manufacturers.

The ICE tests probably exceeded anything an individual could do with his gun; we just can't afford and hardly have the time to run the number of rounds through our guns that they did in the ICE tests. Glocks have an excellent reputation for ruggedness, but it may have been the sustained accuracy requirement that hurt some of the guns.

IIRC, they did cycles of shooting and cleaning and cooling, although seems like they said the guns did get very hot. I got the impression there was NOT a "shoot'em 'til they fail" component.

I really don't bother with those torture test results. There is no way I'm going to be doing any of those things with my guns. Except maybe the number of rounds before mechanical failure results just as an iformation point. Do any of you plan on submerging your gun in seawater for a couple of weeks?

Roger that, but Sig and H&K did get enormous contracts as a result of their performance. So it does kinda corroborate the Sigarms' claims. And I haven't heard of any protests, etc. from the other manufacturers.

True, but it could also have to do with issues such as no external saftey, no follow-up shot capability, etc.

It is also said that the reason that Glock would not get a military contract is they would not agree to license other manufacturers to make their product if the government determined there was a need. That was probably not a factor here (except maybe for the Coast Guard), but just as an example.